Peer Review Policy

Unram Journal of Community Service (UJCS) implements a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published community service articles.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to community development.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team to assess:

  1. Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  2. Compliance with the Author Guidelines.

  3. Originality and academic contribution.

  4. Clarity of community problems and program objectives.

  5. Appropriateness of community service methods.

  6. Evidence of program implementation and outcomes.

  7. Compliance with ethical and publication requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Originality Screening

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for originality using appropriate similarity detection tools.

Similarity reports are assessed contextually, considering the nature of textual overlap rather than relying exclusively on numerical similarity percentages.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the community service topic.

Reviewer selection considers academic expertise, professional experience, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess the following aspects:

  1. Originality and relevance of the community service program.

  2. Clarity of the identified community problems.

  3. Appropriateness of program objectives and implementation methods.

  4. Level of community participation and stakeholder involvement.

  5. Quality of program documentation and evaluation.

  6. Evidence of program outcomes and community benefits.

  7. Sustainability and potential replication of the program.

  8. Quality of discussion and interpretation.

  9. Relevance and quality of references.

  10. Compliance with research and publication ethics.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Acceptance.

  • Minor revisions.

  • Major revisions.

  • Rejection.

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

6. Revision Process

Authors must carefully address reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts within the period specified by the Editorial Office.

A detailed response to reviewer comments may be required.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review when necessary.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The responsible editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, ethical compliance, and the journal's editorial policies.

8. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All participants in the peer-review process must maintain confidentiality and protect unpublished manuscript information.

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit and must remain independent of inappropriate financial, institutional, personal, or other external influences.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or individuals closely associated with the journal must be handled by independent editors without relevant conflicts of interest.

UJCS is committed to maintaining constructive, objective, and professional peer review in accordance with recognized scholarly publishing standards.